PSYC3002

  1. 2
    2
  2. SOCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE:
    • INTERACTIONS BETWEEN 2+ PEOPLE. 
    • OUTCOMES E.G. resources THAT EACH PERSON GETS IS JOINTLY DETERMINED BY THE DECISIONS AND BEHAVIORS OF THEMSELVES AND THE OTHER PERSON.
    • VARIETY OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION IS NEEDED TO GET RESOURCES.
    • MEANINGFUL TO THE INDIVIDUALS.
  3. OUTCOMES:
    • MATERIAL AND NON-MATERIAL THINGS AND "GOOD" AND "BAD" THINGS THAT PEOPLE GET FROM THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS.
    • RESOURCES E.G. goods, services, money, information, status and love. Can be physical and subjective.
    • DIMENSIONS E.G. concreteness and particular e.g. who the exchange is with. We care about who we share love with.
  4. TWO FORMS OF INTERDEPENDENCE: **CHECK THE SLIDES FOR DIAGRAMS.
    • PROMOTIVE "POSITIVE" INTERDEPENDENCE = INTERPERSONAL COOPERATION. E.G. GET GOOD THINGS IF YOU CHOOSE THE SAME BEHAVIOUR.
    • CONTRIENT "NEGATIVE" INTERDEPENCE = INTERPERSONAL COMPETITION. NO ONE IS SATISFIED. NEVER-ENDING CYCLE.
  5. FORMS OF CONTROL IN INTERDEPENDENT SITUATIONS: **CHECK THE SLIDES FOR DIAGRAMS.
    • ACTOR CONTROL "ME": OUTCOMES EFFECTED BY ME. Nonsocial situation. Represents what we can do for ourselves.
    • PARTNER CONTROL: Doesn't matter what you choose. Depends on PC. Represents exchange. "what we can do for each other". E.G. PRISONERS DILEMMA E.G. OUTCOMES HEAVILY EFFECTED BY THE PARTNER.
    • ACTOR-BY-PARTNER-CONTROL: "good" when coordinated. "What we can do with each other".
    • ^DEPENDENCE CAUSES ^ATTENTION TO THE SITUATION AND PARTNERS
  6. SOCIAL DILEMMAS: **CHECK THE SLIDES FOR DIAGRAMS.
    • CHOOSE "B" BECAUSE THEY GET "4". WOULD GET "3' EACH IF THEY BOTH CHOSE "A".
    • COOPERATION = BETTER REWARD AND COMPETITION = BIG LOSS.
    • E.G. water, voting, fishing in open water, pirating, driving, admitting a mistake in personal relationships.
  7. READING PT.2:
    READING PT.2:
  8. WHAT DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER IN AN INTERACTION?:
    • 1. THE SITUATION E.G. DOES SOMEONE HAVE MORE POWER AND ARE THEIR INTERESTS AT ODDS.
    • 2. A'S NEEDS AND MOTIVES AND FEELINGS TOWARDS B. AND VICE VERSA.
  9. INTERACTION OUTCOMES?:
    • CONCRETE OUTCOMES E.G. IMMEDIATE EXPERIENCES OF PLEASURE AND DISPLEASURE.
    • SYMBOLIC OUTCOMES E.G. EXPERIENCES THAT REST ON THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF INTERACTION.
  10. 4 ASSUMPTIONS IN THE INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY:
    • 1. STRUCTURE E.G. THE SITUATION.
    • 2. THE TRANSFORMATION E.G. WHAT PEOPLE MAKE OF THE SITUATION AND CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE OPTIONS.
    • 3. INTERACTION.
    • 4. ADAPTION E.G. LOTS OF SOCIAL INTERACTION MAKES YOU ADOPT CERTAIN TRANSFORMATIONS E.G. REFLECTS 1. DISPOSITIONS. 2. RELATIONSHIPS AND 3. SOCIAL NORMS. E.G. IF YOU GET GOOD OUTCOMES THEN YOU'LL DO IT AGAIN AND IF YOU GET BAD OUTCOMES THEN YOU WON'T.
  11. THE TRANSFORMATION PROCESS?:
    BOTH THE GIVEN SITUATION E.G. SELF-INTEREST AND EFFECTIVE SITUATION E.G. USES BROADER CONSIDERATIONS > CAUSES TRANSFORMATION WHICH LEADS TO A SHIFT IN MOTIVATION FROM GIVEN TO EFFECTIVE PREFERENCES. HELPS COMMUNICATE THAT YOU CARE ABOUT THEM.
  12. 3
    3
  13. COOPERATION COMPETITION AND INDIVIDUALISM:
    COOPERATION E.G. maximizing the collective welfare. **MORE INTRAGROUP COOPERATION THAN INTERPERSONAL AND INTERGROUP COOPERATION. COMPETITION E.G. maximizing your own welfare compared to others. INDIVIDUALISM E.G. maximizing your own welfare independent of others.
  14. GAME THEORY:
    • RATIONAL INDIVIDUALISM.
    • E.G. CHOOSE THE OPTION THAT MINIMIZES YOUR MAX. LOSS AND MAXIMIZES YOUR MIN. GAIN.
    • USE THE DOMINANT STRATEGY. ASSUME THAT OTHERS WILL ALSO USE THEIR DOMINANT STRATEGY.
  15. COGNITIVE TRANSFORMATIONS**CHECK THE SLIDES FOR DIAGRAMS:
    TRANSFORM INTERDEPENDENCE MATRICES INTO PSYCHOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT ONES E.G. EFFECTIVE MATRICES.
  16. GROUP IDENTIFICATION AND COOPERATION:
    HIGH IDENTIFIERS WILL COOPERATE THE MOST. LOW IDENTIFIERS WHO ALSO LIKE TO COOPERATE WILL ALSO COOPERATE MORE.
  17. READING PT.3:
    READING PT. 3:
  18. 3 EXPERIMENTS:
    • 1. SMALL GOODS TASK. GIVEN MONEY THAT THEY KEEP OR SHARE FOR THE COMMON GOOD E.G. GROUP BONUS. 
    • 2. SAME BUT COULD CONTRIBUTE $0-300 TO GET A GROUP BONUS. HAVE TO GET $1200+ TO GET $500 BONUS FOR EVERYONE.
    • 3. NO STEP-LEVEL. BONUS^ THE MORE PEOPLE DONATE.
    • SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION^ CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON GOOD. 
    • WHEN SI WAS LOW = PEOPLE WITH PROSELF COOPERATED MUCH LESS THAN PROSOCIAL PEOPLE.
    • WHEN SI WAS^ = PROSELFS COOPERATED THE SAME AMOUNT AS PROSOCIALS. MEANS THERE'S A POSITIVE EFFECT ON SI IN DILEMMA SITUATIONS. TRANFORMS MOTIVES.
    • THEREFORE: MAKING SI SALIENT WILL HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE NORMALLY FOCUSD ON THEIR PERSONAL GAIN TO GET GOOD OUTCOMES FOR THE GROUP. EVEN WHEN IT GOES AGAINST THEIR SELF-INTEREST.
    • PROSOCIAL PEOPLE WEREN'T REALLY EFFECTED BY THE GOAL-AMPLICATION HYPOTHESIS.
  19. 4
    4
  20. INTERDEPENDENCE > GROUP:
    • DON'T NEED TO BE SIMILAR BUT INTERDEPENDENT. E.G. SHERIF EXPERIMENT WITH GOALS. CAUSE A GROUP TO FORM.
    • MAKES AN ORGANIZATION WITH DIFFERENT STATUES AND ROLES ETC. AND NORMS THAT REGULATE THEIR BEHAVIOUR.
    • SOCIALOGICAL GROUP: WILL EXIST WHEN THE INDIVIDUALS ARE PERSUING INTERDEPENDENT GOALS.
  21. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GROUPS:
    MAKE A UNIT WHEN THEY "BELONG TOGETHER" E.G. PROXIMITY, SIMILARITY, INTERPERSONAL LIKING, FAMILIARITY AND CONTEXT.
  22. WHAT ARE GROUPS THEN?:
    • A COLLECTIVE OF INIVIDUALS WHO PERCEIVE THEMSELVES TO BE A PART OF THE SAME SOCIAL CATEGORY. THEY HAVE EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN THIS DEFINITION OF THEMSELVES AND THEY HAVE A CONSENSUS ABOUT HOW THEIR GROUP IS EVALUATED AND THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN IT.
    • THEREFORE: GROUP-BASED BEHAVIOUR HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE PERCIEVE THEMSELVES AS BEING A PART OF THE GROUP.
  23. 5
    5
  24. THE REALITY OF GROUP LIFE:
    • DETERMINED FROM E.G. PRIMARY DETERMINANT = MATERIAL INTERESTS,  identification with the group, roles within the group, reciprocal interactions with other group members and shared norms.
    • Relationship nature between the group drives the attitudes. Not individuals.
  25. BOY'S CAMP EXPERIMENT:
    • CHOSE MIDDLE-WHITE BOYS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT PREJUDICE VICTIMS.
    • STAGE ONE = INTRAGROUP INTERACTION = interpersonal friendships and norms. Sociogram showed hierarchies e.g. leaders and followers.
    • STAGE TWO: INTERGROUP COMPETITIVE INTERACTION FOR LIMITED AND VALUABLE RESOURCES E.G. "POCKET KNIVES" = stereotypes and prejudice, discrimination and violence. LOSING GROUP RAIDED THE WINNING GROUPS CAMP AND STOLE THE PRIZES.
    • STAGE THREE: INTERGROUP NON-COMPETITIVE INTERACTION FOR A SUPERORDINATE GOAL: Bringing them together without cooperation did nothing. Superordinate goal did.
  26. FIELD REPLICATIONS:
    • COMPETITION DIDN'T CAUSE NEGATIVE ATTITUDES BECAUSE THE BOY SCOUTS WERE PART OF A "SUPERORDINATE GROUP".
    • SHARED NORM OF KINDNESS AND FRIENDLINESS.
  27. CRITICAL VARIABLES:
    • COMPETITION: STRONGER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND AGGRESSION FOR MEMBERS WHO HIGHLY IDENTIFIED WITH THEIR GROUP.
    • LOW STATUS MEMBERS FAVOUR "ADVANTAGED OUTGRUOP" INSTEAD OF THEIR "DISADVANTAGED INGROUP".
    • COOPERATION: WHEN THEY DON'T REACH THE SUPERORDINATE GOAL THEN OUTGROUP IS BLAMED. ^INGROUP HOSTILITY.
    • BLURRY GROUP BOUNDARIES MIGHT SLOW DOWN INTERGROUP COOPERATION.
    • "TYPICAL" MEMBERS = POSITIVE EVALUATIONS OF THE OUTGROUP.
  28. MINIMAL GROUPS:
    • SCHOOL BOYS CHOSE WHY PAINTING THEY LIKED THE BEST. CATEGORIZED = COGNITIVE ACCENTUATION.
    • GAVE MONEY TO INGROUP AND OUTGROUP MEMBERS.
    • Biggest difference = competition. Didn't choose the option that gave the ingroup member the most. Always > than outgroup. Close = cooperation.
    • FOUND: GROUP-BASED BEHAVIOUR CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT INTERDEPENDENCE. CATEGORIZATION ALONE CAN PROVIDE A BASIS.
  29. READING PT. 5:
    READINGS PT.5:
  30. INTERGROUP DISCRIMINATION EXPERIMENT:
    • BOYS SHOWN DOTS AN TOLD THAT SOME PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE THE DOTS AND SOME UNDERESTIMATE. PUT INTO RANDOM GROUPS. WERE GIVEN 6 MATRICES. TOLD TO GIVE INGROUP AND OUTGROUP MEMBERS MONEY.
    • GAVE MORE TO OWN GROUP THAN OUTGROUP. 
    • WILL NOT MAXIMISE PROFIT FOR ALL BUT JUST THEIR GROUP. WILL TRY TO PICK THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE.
  31. 6
    6
  32. INTERPERSONAL TO INTERGROUP CONTINUUM:
    • INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR > SHARED AND COMMON GROUP BEHAVIOUR.
    • SALIENT IN INTERPERSONAL INTERACTIONS.
    • SALIENT IN GROUP INTERACTIONS.
  33. VANTAGE POINTS:
    • THE INDIVIDUAL HAS A VANTAGE POINT. ALWAYS SALIENT. WHEREAS E.G. MATH STUDENT MIGHT BE WEIRD AT A RUGBY GAME. INHABIT DIFFERENT SOCIAL LOCATIONS.
    • ACCEPTING THE VANTAGE POINT MAKES YOU IDENTIFY WITH A SELF-CATEGORY E..G. PERSONAL AND SOCIAL.
    • IDENTIFICATION= CONTEXT BASED SELF-DEFINITION. CAUSES BEHAVIOUR.
  34. SELF-CATEGORIZATIONS:
    COGNITIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SELF. WE GROUP OURSELVES AND ANOTHER STIMULI AS BEING THE SAME. IN CONTRAST TO SOMETHING ELSE.
  35. THREE LEVELS OF SELF-CATEGORIZATION:
    • SUBORDINATE PERSONAL. NOT "TRUE-SELF". WE SWITCH BETWEEN THEM DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT.
    • SUPERORDINATE E.G. HUMAN BEING.
    • INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OF INGROUP AND OUTGROUP.
  36. THE SALIENCE OF A SELF-CATEGORY DEPENDS ON THESE FACTORS:
    • COMPARATIVE FIT E.G. "within category differences are smaller than between category difference".
    • NORMATIVE FIT E.G. attributes given to "categories" in a way that makes sense.
    • PERCEIVER READINESS E.G. GENDER.
  37. MOTIVATION:
    • INDIVIDUALS STRIVE FOR A POSITIVE SELF-ESTEEM AND SELF-CONCEPT.
    • SOCIAL IDENTITY WILL BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.
    • EVALUATION DEPENDS ON OTHER GROUPS. USE SOCIAL COMPARISON IN TERMS OF VALUED ATTRIBUTES AND CHARACTERISTICS.
    • POSITIVE COMPARISONS = HIGH PRESTIGE AND VICE VERSA.
  38. HOW TO GET A POSITIVE SOCIAL IDENTITY:
    • INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY E.G. leave own low-status group for a high-status group.
    • SOCIAL CREATIVITY.
    • E.G. COMPARE GROUPS ON A NEW DIMENSION. CHANGE OUTGROUP. CHANGE VALUE E.G. nurses have better bed-side care.
  39. READING PT.6:
    READING PT.6:
  40. SELF-CATEGORIZATION?:**EXPLAINED BETTER.
    HAVE PERSONAL AND SOCIAL IDENTITIES WHICH ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SELF-CATEGORIZATION. GROUP PROCESSES ARE EXPLAINED BY OUR SHIFT FROM OUR PERSONAL TO SOCIAL IDENTITY. E.G. WOMEN PSYCHOLOGIST VS. MEN PSYCHOLOGIST OR PSYCHOLOGIST VS. OTHER PSYCHOLOGISTS. CHANGES BASED ON "FRAME-OF-REFERENCE".
  41. OAKES, HASLAM AND TURNER (1991).:
    WATCHED A GROUP DISCUSSION OF 6 STUDENTS. 3 = ARTS AND 3 = SCIENCE. CONFLICT CONDITION AND CONSENSUS AND DEVIENCE E.G. ONE STUDENT DISAGREED. 1 CONDITION WHERE ARTS STUDENTS HAD STEREOTYPICAL VIEWS AND ONE WHERE THEY DIDN'T. IDENTITY WAS MOST SALIENT IN THE CONFLICTION CONDTION BECAUSE THEY ATTRIBUTED DIFFERENCES TO THEIR FIELD.
  42. OTHER POINTS:
    • SOCIAL IDENTITY BECOMES MORE SALIENT IN INTERGROUP AND INDIVIDUAL IN INTERPERSONAL E.G. 2 MEN VS. 2 WOMEN HAD DISCUSSION AND PERCIEVED DIFFERENCES WERE BIGGER BETWEEN SEX.
    • OUTGROUPS ARE SEEN AS MORE HOMOGENOUS. BUT INGROUPS AREN'T SO WE CAN STILL MAKE JUDGEMENTS BETWEEN INGROUP MEMBERS.
  43. STABILITY WILL HAPPEN WHEN?:
    • 1. SOCIAL REALITY FOR SELF-DEFINITION IS THE SAME.
    • 2. HIGHER-ORDER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BEHAVIOUR IS THE SAME.
    • 3. SOCIAL GROUPS HAVE STABLE NORMS AN MOTIVES ETC.
    • 4. SOCIAL INFLUENCE.
  44. 7
    7
  45. DEINDIVIDUATION VS. DEPERSONALIZATION?:
    • DEINDIVIDUATION E.G. PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE. ANONYMITY = LOSE SCRUTINIZATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY. LOSS OF IDENTITY BECAUSE YOU'RE IN A GROUP.
    • DEPERSONALIZATION E.G. SHIFT TO SEEING YOURSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL TO A GROUP MEMBER. SHIFT IN IDENTITY NOT A LOSS OF IDENTITY. E.G. SHIFT TO GROUP IDENTITY TENDS TO MAKE YOUR INDIVIDUAL SELF-PERCEPTION BECOME "DEPERSONALIZED".
  46. ANONYMITY VS. IDENTIFIABILITY TRICK-OR-TREATERS EXPERIMENT:
    • IDENTIFIED E.G. ALONE AND ANONYMOUS E.G. IN A GROUP.
    • CHIILDREN WHO ARE IN A GROUP E.G. DEPERSONALIZED AND WHO ARE ANONYMOUS E.G. DE-INDIVIDUATED ARE THE MOST TRANSGRESSING E.G. TEST THE LIMITS.
  47. MORE EFFECTS OF ANONYMITY?:
    FEMALE UNI STUDENTS. GROUP OF 4 AND WORE HOODS LIKE THE KKK. EITHER WORE NAMETAGS OR WERE ANONYMOUS. ANONYMOUS PARTICIPANTS HAD MORE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.
  48. ANONYMITY AND DEPERSONALIZATION:
    • STUDENTS HAD CPU COMMUNICATION. SOME HAD VISUAL ANONYMITY AND SOME HAD VISUAL IDENTIFIABILITY VIA THE WEB CAM.
    • TESTED ATTRACTION TO THE GROUP AND IDENTIFICATION WITH THE GROUP.
    • DEINDIVIDUATION AND ANONYMITY CAUSED THEM TO SHIFT AND IDENTIFY WITH A SOCIAL GROUP.
  49. ANONYMITY AND SALIENT NORMS:
    • ^^^SAME AS ABOVE. HAS PICTURES OF THEMSELVES OR NO PICTURES. HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT A HOSPITAL WHERE THERE WAS A PRO-SOCIAL NORM OR EFFICIENCY NORM.
    • PROSOCIAL -MORE WHEN IDENTIFIED. ANONYMOUS = EFFICIENCY. ANONYMITY = MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT GROUP NORMS.
  50. ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY SALIENCE:
    • PARTICIPANTS SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER OR PHYSICALLY ISOLATED. MANIPULATED "GROUP IDENTITY" AND DESCRIBED A TASK ABOUT GROUP PROCESSES AND VICE VERSA WITH THEIR "INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY".
    • ANONYMITY E.G. DE-INDIVIDUATION LEADS TO CONFORMITY WHEN THERE IS A GROUP IDENTITY AVAILABLE. IF NOT THEN = NON-CONFORMITY. 
    • THEREFORE: DE-INDIVIDUATED PEOPLE BEHAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL NORMS E.G. GROUP NORMS.
  51. 8
    8
  52. SHARED CROSS CATEGORIZATIONS:
    PEOPLE ARE PART OF MULTIPLE SOCIAL CATEGORIES -- SOME ARE SHARED AND SOME ARE NOT.
  53. Sex by Age Crossed-Categorisation
    Crossed categorisation leads to reduced in-group favouritism compared to simple categorisation.
  54. Crossing Minimal Groups PT.1:
    BRITISH WOMEN UNI STUDENTS. CATEGORIZED ON 2 DIMENSIONS E.G. OVER-ESTIMATORS AND UNDER-ESTIMATORS AND "LARGE = BETTER" AND "SMALL = BETTER". LIKED THE DOUBLE INGROUP MORE THAN DOUBLE OUTGROUP AND THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE MORE SIMILAR TO THEMSELVES.
  55. Crossing Minimal Groups PT.2:
    THOUGHT
  56. 9
    9
  57. SUPERORDINATE DEBATE:
    • CAN REDUCE INGROUP FAVOURTISM AND PREJUDICE. ONLY IF SUBGROUPS ARE STILL VALUED AND NOT IGNORED.
    • ISN'T GIVEN. CAN BE CONTESTED.
    • DISAGREEMENT WILL NOT REDUCE INGROUP FAVOURITISM.
    • THINKING YOUR GROUP BEST REPRESENTS WILL ^INGROUP FAVOURITISM E.G. AUSTRALIA = WHITE.
  58. SPORTS-BIKERS AND CHOPPER-BIKERS:
    • WROTE LISTS OF SUBGROUP INGROUP AND OUTGROUP CHARACTERISTICS. COMPARED TO SUPERORDINATE GROUP.
    • "PROJECTED UP". BOTH THOUGHT THEY BEST REPRESENTED THE SC.
  59. PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHERS:
    • NAMED ATTRIBUTES.
    • PST AND HST BOTH THOUGHT THAT TEACHERS WERE MORE LIKE THEM.
  60. GERMAN AND PORTUGUESE EXPERIMENT:
    • G AND P PARTICIPANTS INDICATED WHICH OF TWO FACES WAS MORE "EUROPEAN"
    • MORPHED FACE WITH RANDOM NOISE. NEW SAMPLE RATED HOW GERMAN AND PORTUGUESE THEY WERE.
    • PICKED APPEARANCE OF THE SUBGROUP.
  61. WEST AND EAST GERMAN EXPERIMENT:
    • WEST GERMANS WERE HIGHER-STATUS. EAST GERMANS WERE MOVING BACK.
    • WG PROJECTED ONTO GERMANS. EG DIDN'T. CONFRONTED WITH REALITY ANND RECOGNIZED THEIR LOW STATUS.
    • = LOW-STATUS GROUPS WILL RECOGNIZE THEIR LOW-STATUS POSITION.
  62. EUROPEAN AUSTRALIANS AND EUROPEAN NEW ZEALANDERS EXPERIMENT:
    • IAT.
    • EA HAD BIG ASSOCIATED BETWEEN "WHITE" AND "AUSTRALIAN". ENZ DIDN'T.
    • MAORI SYMBOLS ARE MORE COMMON IN NZ THAN INDIGENOUS.
  63. PSYCHOLOGY AND BUSINESS STUDENTS EXPERIMENT:
    • STRONGER WITH PEOPLE WHO STRONGLY IDENTIFY WITH THEIR SUBGROUP. 
    • HIGH IDENTIFICATION WITH BOTH THE INGROUP AND SUPERORDIANTE GROUP I.E. "STUDENTS" = MORE PROJECTION. BIGGEST OVERALL.
  64. CONSEQUENCES OF INGROUP PROJECTION. FAIRNESS IN HIRING:
    • E.G. ANU BETTER THAN SYDNEY IN THEORY AND METHODS. MANIPULATED CATEGORIES.
    • JUDGED TWO ANU CANDIDATES. NO DIFFERENCE IF YOU DON'T CARE. PROJECTED INGROUP CHARACTERISTICS ONTO THE SUPERORDINATE GROUP.
    • BIASED TOWARDS "ANU CHARACTERISTICS". NOT AS LIKELY TO PICK ANU WITH OUTGROUP CHARACTERISTICS.
  65. CONSEQUENCES OF INGROUP PROJECTION. PREJUDICE:
    • GERMAN SCHOOL CHILDREN AND IMMIGRANT SCHOOL CHILDREN. 
    • INGROUP PROJECTION PREDICTED: BLANTANT PREJUDICE "will never be comfortable with each other". INTERGROUP ANXIETY "how would you feel about being the only German working with immigrants". AND EMOTIONS. CAUSED DISCRIMINATION.
  66. TOWARDS TOLERANCE:
    PREJUDICE IS REDUCED WHEN PEOPLE ARE GIVEN A SIMPLE SUPERORDINATE GROUP VS. COMPLEX AND DIVERSE.
  67. 10
    10
  68. DEVIANCE:
    • BEHAVIOUR THAT DEPARTS FROM:
    • 1. DESCRIPTIVE NORMS E.G. WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY DOING AND.
    • 2. PRESCRIPTIVE NORMS E.G. WHAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO DO. BOTH LEAD TO BAD TREATMENT.
  69. "BLACK SHEEP"
    • WHITE SHEEP AND THE BLACK SHEEP STANDS OUT.
    • E.G. INGROUP AND OUTGROUP UNI POLITICAL PARTIES. WERE POSITIVE E.G. supported families OR NEGATIVE E.G. does not support families.
    • WILLINGNESS TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE: Favoured when they are described positively. When the ingroup does something bad it's worse than when the outgroup does it. "Expect the outgroup to do bad things".
    • VOTE FOR NEGATIVE OUTGROUP MEMBER OVER NEGATIVE INGROUP MEMBER.
  70. "BLACK SHEEP" MERCHANT BANKING DEVIANT EXPERIMENT:
    • INGROUP AND OUTGROUP BANK. DEVIANT I.E. LOW COMITTMENT ETC. IS EITHER LIKEABLE OR UNLIKABLE.
    • LIKED THE LIKEABLE INGROUP DEVIANT AND THE UNLIKEABLE OUTGROUP DEVIANT MORE.
  71. WHY DO PEOPLE DEVIATE FROM THE NORMS?:
    • THINK THEY AR BEING LOYAL AND HAVE THE "TRUE" NORMS OF THE GROUP. 
    • DEBATE = SPLIT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR SUBGROUPS.
  72. SCHISM:
    DIVIDES GROUP INTO SUBGROUPS. MEANS THERE'S THE SUBGROUP > GROUP > SUPERORDINATE GROUP.
  73. SCHISM EXPERIMENT:
    • UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ON ITALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY. LEFT VS. RIGHT.
    • EACH SUBGROUP MEMBER SAID THAT THEY WERE LOYAL TO THE SUPERORDINATE GROUP.
    • THINKS OTHER SIDE CONTRADICTS WHAT IS MEANT BY THE INGROUP IDENTITY.
    • HAPPY TO BREAK GROUP BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT THEY'RE RIGHT.
  74. LOYAL DEVIANCE:
    WHEN PEOPLE THINK THE DESCRIPTIVE NORM IS WRONG THEY THEY WILL DEVIATE. MOSTLY PEOPLE WHO VALUE THEIR GROUP MEMBERSHIP.
  75. LOYAL DEVIANCE EXPERIMENT: PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS:
    • MEASURED IDENTIFICATION AND WHETHER THEY HAD EVER DISAGREED WITH GROUPS. MEASURED THESE MOTIVES E.G. BECAUSE I CARE.
    • HIGH IDENTIFICATION = MORE MOTIVATED BY COLLECTIVE RATHER THAN PERSONAL REASONS TO DISAGREE.
    • LOW IDENTIFICATION = MORE MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL RATHER THAN COLLECTIVE REASONS TO DISAGREE.
  76. LOYAL DEVIANCE EXPERIMENT: PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS PT.2:
    • MOCK EMPLOYMENT DECISION.
    • TOLD THAT THEIR HOMOGENOUS OR HETEROGENOUS = SOCIAL IDENTITY.
    • MEMBER SUGGESTS MAKING BAD DECISIONS. GETS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OR NO SUPPORT.
    • DISCONTENT WITH ONE REGARDLESS OF IDENTIICATION. MORE DISCONTENT WHEN MORE PEOPLE DO IT. SHOWING WHAT THEY "OUGHT" TO DO.
  77. LOYAL DEVIANCE EXPERIMENT: DORM RESIDENTS:
    • LISTED THREE EXPECTATIONS FROM THEIR COMMUNITY E.G. "OUGHT" AND HOW MUCH BEHAVIOUR MATCHED THESE E.G. "IS". MEASURED DISCONTENT.
    • HI WILL SPEAK OUT MORE WHEN THERE'S A NORM VIOLATION.
  78. 11
    11
  79. INFORMATION PROCESSING FRAMEWORK AND STEREOTYPES:
    • ENCODING E.G. selective attention, salience, goal-processing and physical and mental states.
    • REPRESENTATION E.G. Have expectations about what's going to happen. Helps us elaborate and evaluate information. Makes "cognitive structures"
    • A.K.A. SCHEMAS E.G. STEREOTYPE E.G. WHAT WE EXPECT ABOUT A GROUP.
  80. ILLUSIONARY CORRELATION:
    WHEN THE STEREOTYPE IS THE INCORRECT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN A CATEGORY AND THEIR ATTRIBUTES. OVERESTIMATE THE CO-OCCURRENCE OF TWO THINGS E.G. NORMALLY LOW-STATUS AND NEGATIVE.
  81. ILLUSIONARY CORRELATION EXPERIMENT:
    • GIVEN DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS ABOUT GROUP A AND B. ONE IS THE MAJORITY AND ONE IS THE MINORITY. GROUP A = GET MORE BUT EQUAL TO GROUP B.
    • WE ENCODE MORE UNDESIRABLE THINGS ABOUT MINORTY AND OVERESTIMATE.
    • INFREQUENT EVENTS ARE RARE = REMEMBERED MORE.
    • SAME FOR: BLACK AND WHITE AMERICANS AND VIOLENCE AND CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT AT THE FUNERAL.
  82. STEREOTYPE CRITICISMS:
    • CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT CORE TO STEREOTYPES.
    • CHARACTERISTICS CAN'T BE QUANTIFIED. DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANATORY.
  83. CONTEXT DEPENDENT NATURE OF STEREOTYPES EXPERIMENT:
    • FIRST GULF WAR. Australia didn't support America's intervention.
    • CHANGED TO: ARROGANT, ARGUMENTATIVE, MATERIALISTIC AND NATIONALISTIC.
    • SAME FOR AUSTRALIA: CHANGED FROM SUPPORTIVE TO UNSUPPORTIVE E.G. ANU favoured JOHN HOWARD less because of rising youth unemployment etc.
  84. READINGS PT.11:
    READINGS PT.11:
  85. PRINCETON STUDENTS:
    ASSIGNED TRAITS TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. HYPOTHESIZED THAT IT DIDN'T REFLECT THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH PEOPLE BUT MORE "PUBLIC ATTITUDES" ABOUT RACIAL GROUPS.
  86. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT:
    BELIEFS ABOUT E.G ASIANS WERE CHANGED BY AMERICANS AFTER WW2. CAME INTO CONFLICT WITH = LESS FAVOURABLE. E.G. JAPANESE WERE PREVIOUSLY SEEN AS ARTISTIC AND PROGRESSIVE AND WERE NOW SEEN AS DECEITFUL AND TREACHEROUS ETC. CHANGE IS "SELECTIVE" RATHER THAN INDISCRIMINATE. ALSO CHANGE BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THEIR PRODUCTION.
  87. BUILT-UP HOSTILITY:
    BUILT-UP AGGRESSION AND HOSTILITY OF NAZIS AND GERMANS WAS POURED ONTO THE OUTGROUP E.G. JEWS. ALSO PREJUDICED INDIVIDUALS MIGHT BE ANGRY WITH THOSE WHO HAVE POWER OVER THEM AND THEN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST VULNERABLE OTHERS.
  88. 12
    12
  89. CRITISIMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF STEREOTYPES?:
    • 1. CHARACTERISTICS ARE NOT THE CORE FEATURE OF THE STEREOTYPE.
    • 2. CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE QUANITIFED.
    • THEY ARE PURELY DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANATORY.
  90. STEREOTYPING IN MINIMAL GROUPS?:
    DIDN'T KNOW THE INGROUP OR OUTGROUP. STILL ASCRIBED MORE POSITIVE AND LESS NEGATIVE TRAITS TO THEIR OWN GROUP. REMEMBER MORE NEGATIVE OUTGROUP BEHAVIOURS.
  91. Re-evaluating the Illusory Correlation:
    • Will an illusory correlation happen without the initial category-learning stage? If it happens then distinctiveness-based analyses might be wrong.
    • WERE TOLD: 2x A than B or not. Had P/N characteristics or not. ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS STILL HAPPENED WHEN THEY DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE 2X GROUPS. THEREFORE: CATEGORIZATION IS A PROCESS OF SENSE-MAKING E.G. USE INFORMATION TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS.
  92. SALIENT SOCIAL IDENTITY AND CONSENSUS EXPERIMENT:
    AUSTRALIAN IDENTITY OR PERSONAL IDENTITY WAS MADE SALIENT. PICKED CHARACTERISTICS THAT THEY THOUGHT WERE TYPICAL OF AUSTRALIANS. DONE ALONE THEN IN SMALL GROUPS. ^IN GROUP TASK AND ^WITH SOCIAL IDENTITY.
  93. STEREOTYPES AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE?:
    • ANU STUDENTS READ OPINIONS ABOUT AUSTRALIANS AND AMERICANS FROM UNPREJUDICE/INGROUP AND PREJUDICED/OUTGROUP MEMBERS. OPINIONS WERE EITHER CONSISTENT WITH STEREOTYPES OR NOT.
    • SUPPORT FOR STEREOTYPES WAS ^FOR CONSISTENT STEREOTYPES COMING FROM INGROUP MEMBERS. DON'T CARE WHEN OURGROUP MEMBER TELLS YOU.
    • AND SUPPORT ^FOR INCONSISTENT STEREOTYPES COMING FROM THE OUTGROUP.
    • THEREFORE = LEARNED THROUGH SOCIAL INFLUENCE. IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF STEREOTYPES IS SHAREDNESS.
  94. READINGS PT.12:
    READING PT.12:
  95. DOES THE SOCIAL STEREOTYPING OF AMERICANS VARY WITH HOSTILITIES EXPERIMENT:
    • RATED STATEMENTS ABOUT "ATTITUDES TO WAR". RATED WHETHER THEY THOUGHT  AUSTRALIANS SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN THE GULF WAR = MOST SAID NO AND ONLY A SMALL MINORITY SAID YES.
    • GAVE CHARACTERISTICS TO COUNTRIES. HAD A RESTRICTED, MEDIUM AND EXTENDED RANGE. FOUND THAT: STEREOTYPE CONTEXT VARIED WITH LARGE-SCALE SOCIAL CHANGE. 
    • AMERICANS = HAPPY TO ARROGANT
    • ETC. BECAUSE OF THE GULF WAR WHICH AUSTRALIANS DIDN'T SUPPORT. ^IN THE FIRST CONDITION WHICH MENTIONED IRAQ + OTHERS INVOLVED.
    • SHOWS 1. STEREOTYPES CHANGE WITH SOCIAL CONTEXT AND 2. THIS MAKES SENSE WITH THE KINDS OF SOCIAL COMPARISONS THAT ARE ENGENDERED BY BIG SOCIAL EVENTS AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE GROUPS.
  96. READINGS PT. 13:
    READINGS PT.13:
  97. AVOIDING GROUPTHINK:
    MEASURED IDENTIFICATION. SAID WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS A PROBLEM AT THEIR UNI E.G. BINGE-DRINKING. RATED CONCERN PRIVATELY THEN PUBLICALLY. RATED HOW BAD THEY THOUGHT OTHER STUDENTS THOUGHT THE PROBLEM WAS. FOUND THAT = UNLESS THEY THOUGHT OTHER STUDENTS WOULD AGREE LI DIDN'T SHARE THEIR CONCERNS. SI SAID WHEN THEY THOUGHT IT WAS HARMFUL.
  98. READINGS PT.14:
    READINGS PT. 14:
  99. GROUPS AND WORK?:
    WORKERS ARE EXPECTED TO ADOPT CONVERGING GOALS AND SACRIFICE THEIR SHORT-TERM INDIVIDUAL INTERESTED E.G. OVER-TIME TO ACHIEVE A MORE LONG-TERM COLLECTIVE GOAL E.G. NEW BUSINESS. THIS MEANS THAT THE MOTIVATION TO ACHIEVE A COLLECTIVE GOAL IS DERIVED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS AND MOTIVES. INSTEAD OF JUST REWARDING FROM AN INDIVIDUAL POV.
  100. SELF-CATEGORIZATION, IDENTITY AND WORK?:
    • 1. WILL IDENTIFY WITH THEIR COLLECTIVE E.G. WORK TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MEANINGFULLY DISTINGUISHES THEM FROM OTHER WORKS. WILL ALSO CHOSE LEADERS THAT DISTINGUISH THEM FROM OTHER GROUPS IN THIS SITUATION.
    • AND 2. MORE LIKELY TO IDENTIFY WITH SMALLER COLLECTIVES E.G. CO-WORKERS THAN THEIR OVERALL WORK WHEN THEY ARE COMPARING SMALLER GROUPS.
    • NOT BOUND BY INTERPERSONAL TIES CAN ALSO BE MOTIVATED TO WORK WHEN THEIR IDENTITY IS MADE SALIENT.
    • WORK TOWARDS THE GOAL WHEN IT MAINTAINS THEIR COLLECTIVE IDENTITY. WILL DECREASE WHEN THE NORM IS UNDERACHIEVEMENT.
  101. READINGS PT.15:
    READINGS PT.15:
  102. FESTINGER ET. AL?:
    • DAUNTED WITH "THE TOTAL FIELD" AND ONLY LOOKED AT "THE PATTERNS OF FRIENDSHIP AND ATTRACTION AMONG MEMBERS".
    • CHANGED. 1. "FIELD OF FORCES" WAS CHANGED TO "FORCES ON MEMBERS TO REMAIN IN THE GROUP". 2. "ATTRACTION-TO-GROUP" CHANGED TO GROUP COHESIVENESS. THEREFORE: GROUP COHESIVENESS WAS THE AVERAGE EFFECT OF THE INDIVIDUALS ATTRACTION TO THEIR GROUP.
  103. GC CRITICISMS?:
    RADICAL CRITICISMS: IT'S A GROUP PHENOMENON BUT YOU MEASURE THE ATTRACTION BETWEEN MEMBERS?
  104. GROUP ATTRIBUTES:
    • AGGREGATE ATTRIBUTES: THE AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEMBERS AND STRUCTURAL ATTRIBUTES: RELATIONS. COHESIVENESS IS A STRUCTURAL ATTRIBUTE TO WITH THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEMBERS. CANNOT BE TRANSFORMED INTO AGGREGATE TERMS.
    • MAYBE JUST THEORIES OF INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION BETWEEN PEOPLE IN SMALL INTERACTIVE AGGREGATES?
  105. SOCIAL ATTRACTION DEPENDS ON?:
    • 1. THE SOCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS.
    • 2. PROTOTYPICALITY.
    • NATURE OF THE HEIRACHICAL INTERGROUP RELATIONS.
  106. SOCIAL ATTRACTION?:
    THERE WAS MORE SOLIDARITY BETWEEN MEMBERS OF AN UNCATEGORIZED AGGREGATE OF PEOPLE WHO LIKED EACH OTHER THAN BETWEEN THOSE WHO DIDN'T LIKE EACH OTHER. = INTERPERSONAL EFFECTS CAN BE CHANGED WITH CATEGORIZATION.
  107. READING PT.16:
    READING PT.16:
  108. DOT CONSTELLATION TASK WITH MINIMAL GROUPS?:
    • ESTIMATED THE DOTS. HAD FALSE-FEEDBACK SAYING THEY WERE DETAIL PERCEIVERS BECAUSE THEIR GUESSES WERE MORE EFFECTED BY THE SMALL DOTS.
    • DID A GROUP-TASK. GAVE ESTIMATION. FALSE-FEEDBACK ABOUT THE OTHER 3 MEMBERS GUESSES AND WERE TOLD THEIR GROUPS WERE COMPARED.
    • MONEY E.G. MAXIMISE JOINT PROFIT, EQUAL, INGROUP FAVOURISTISM AND OUTGROUP FAVOURITISM.
    • FALSE-FEEDBACK ABOUT WHAT OTHER PARTICIPANTS HAD DONE E.G. EQUAL OR FAVOURITISM. DECISION WAS EFFECTED BY THE GROUP NORM BUT SOME DID FAVOUR THE INGROUP.
  109. DOT CONSTELLATION TASK WITH UNI'S?:
    • SAME EXPERIMENT. FOLLOWED THE INGROUP NORM AND DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE OUTGROUP NORM.
    • SIMILAIR INGROUP NORMS LED TO MORE POSITIVE EVALUTAIONS OF THE INGROUP AND ^PROTOTYPICALITY THAN DIS-SIMILAR NORM CONDITIONS = SELF-STEREOTYPING.
  110. 17
    17
  111. LOW SELF-ESTEEM LEADS TO INGROUP FAVOURITISM EXPERIMENT:
    • UQ. MANIPULATED SELF-ESTEEM E.G. FAILED OR DID WELL ON THE TASK.  GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOCATE POINTS TO AN INGROUP AND OUTGROUP MEMBER. ALSO INTERPERSONAL E.G. TWO PEOPLE.
    • UNFAIRNESS = FAILED IN THE INTERGROUP SITUATION. FAVOURED THE INGROUP WHEN THEY FAILED. FAIR = SUCCEEDED.
    • THINK OF OURSELVES AS GROUP MEMBER AND COMPARE OURSELVES TO OTHER GROUPS. IF POSITIVE THEN YOU'RE IN A GOOD GROUP. THERE WAS NO COMPARISON OPPORTUNITY IN THIS LAB.
    • TRYING TO MAKE THE COMPARISION BY GIVING MORE TO THEIR OWN GROUP.
    • THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE INTERPERSONAL SITUATION BECAUSE THEIR WERE NO GROUPS.
    • HOW WE FEEL ABOUT OURSELVES DEPENDS ON OUR GROUP MEMBERSHIPS.
  112. INGROUP FAVOURITISM LEADS TO INCREASED SELF-ESTEEM EXPERIMENT
    • MINIMAL GROUPS. GIVEN MATRICES WITH ALL DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND CAN CHOOSE WHETHER YOU'RE FAIR ETC. AND BIASED MATRIX BUT THEY WERE ALWAYS INGROUP FAVOURISTISM + ALL EQUAL E.G. HAD TO BE FAIR.
    • WHEN THERE'S FREE-CHOICE, FORCED DISCRIMINATION AND FORCED FAIRNESS. FORCED INGROUP FAVOURITISM = ^SELF-ESTEEM. PERSONAL SELF-ESTEEM. NOT THE BEST MEASURE BECAUSE IT'S MEASURING TWO DOMAINS.
  113. THE FOUR DIMENSIONS OF COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM:
    • MEMBERSHIP E.G. " I am worthy of the group that I belong to".  PRIVATE E.G. "I am happy with the groups that I belong to".
    • PUBLIC E.G. "My groups are considered to be good by other people" and
    • IDENTITY E.G. "belonging to groups is an important part of my self-image".
  114. COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM EXPERIMENT:
    • NZ GAVE WHITE NOISE E.G. STATIC. HOW DID NZ SUFFER AND AMERICAN SUFFER < NEGATIVE OUTCOMES.
    • MEASURED PRIVATE E.G. I FEEL GOOD ABOUT BEING A NZ. GAVE MORE NASTIES TO AMERICANS. INGROUP FAVOURITISM.
    • PRIVATE COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM. MORE IN THE INGROUP FAVOURITISM CONDITION = BETTER SELF-ESTEEM.
  115. SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT EXPERIMENT:
    • COLD WAR. BAD = RUSSIAN. SHOWED ROCKY V SCENE. SHOWN THAT HE LOST THE FIGHT. 
    • THREATENING STATUS.
    • **LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM**. 
    • MEASURED PRIVATE SELF-ESTEEM. CLIP. THEN SELF-ESTEEM AGAIN. LOWER 1 COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM THE MORE THEY DEROGATED RUSSIANS AND NON-AMERICANS. MORE THE DEROGATED RUSSIANS ^SELF-ESTEEM. DONE WITH RELATIVE OUTGROUP.
    • THE MORE THEY DEROGATED MEMBERS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES THE LOWER THEIR COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM. INGROUP FAVOURITISM LOWERS SELF-ESTEEM. IF THE OUTGROUP ISN'T RELEVENT THEN IT WILL DECREASE YOUR SELF-ESTEEM.
    • SUMMED UP: Lower private collective self-esteem leads to increased out-group derogation. AND Increased relevant out-group derogation leads to higher private collective self-esteem.
  116. PERSONAL VS. PUBLIC SELF-ESTEEM:
    BOTH HIGH = SATISFIED. PERSONAL LOW AND PUBLIC HIGH = FLATTERED. PUBLIC LOW AND PERSONAL HIGH = DISAFFECTED AND BOTH LOW = DEFEATIST. DISAFFECTED HAS THE BIGGEST INGROUP FAVOURITISM.
  117. Domain Specific Self-Esteem:
    • TESTED PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS ON E.G. HONESTY, ACADEMIC AND VERBAL ABILITY, PHYSICAL APPREARANCE, RELIGION AND PARENTS E.G. MY VALUES ARE THE ONES MY PARENTS HAVE. PRE-TEST. COULD RATE THE GROUPS AND SHOW INGROUP FAVOURITISM E.G. BETTER THAN THE OTHER. POST-TEST: RATED BETTER.
    • HAD ALL ENCOMPASSING EFFECT.
  118. Domain Specific Self-Esteem:
    MEN AND WOMEN.  MEN HAD BIG INGROUP FAVOURITISM ON VERBAL ABILITY AND HAD BIGGER VERBAL AND PHYSICAL SELF-ESTEEM. WOMEN HAD OUTGROUP FAVOURITISM ON PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND HAD A LOWER PHYSICAL SELF-ESTEEM. MEN HAD INCREASED SELF-ESTEEM ON THAT ONE DIMENSION.
  119. 18
    18
  120. PROTOTYPICALITY:
    • INDICATES "INGROUPNESS". REPRESENTS THE DEGREE TO WHICH A MEMBER OR ATTRIBUTE IS CENTRAL OR PERIPHERAL TO THE GROUP. REPRESENTS THE DEGREE TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL OR ATTRIBUTE IS TYPICAL TO THE INGROUP. ^INGROUP PROTOTYPICALITY = ^THEIR STATUS AS A GROUP MEMBER.
    • NOT JUST "WHO AND WHAT DEFINES US" BUT "WHO AND WHAT DEFINES US AND MAKES US DIFFERENT FROM THEM". MOST RESEARCH FORGETS ABOUT THE SECOND POINT.
  121. EFFORTS TO MAKE INGROUP CREDETIALS EXPERIMENT: FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS:
    • FRATERNITY = FULL MEMBERS AND SORORITY = "PLEDGES" AND NON-PROTOTYPICAL MEMBERS. RATED MEMORIES OF THEIR OWN GROUP AND OTHER GROUPS AND WERE TOLD THAT THEY HAD TO DISCUSS THEIR RESPONSES WITH INGROUP MEMBERS E.G. "PUBLIC" OR NO-ONE E.G. "PRIVATE".
    • FOUND MORE INGROUP FAVOURITISM WHEN PLEDGES HAD TO TALK PUBLICALLY. MIGHT DO THIS TO GAIN A MORE CENTRAL PLACE AND SHOW LOYALTY TO THE GROUP. FULL MEMBERS DIDN'T REALLY HAVE AN EFFECT. "PERIPHERALS" USE DEROGATION TO GAIN ACCEPTANCE.
  122. EFFORTS TO MAKE INGROUP CREDETIALS EXPERIMENT: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS:
    DID A BOGUS TEST TO SEE HOW WELL THEY FIT INTO "THE UNI OF QUEENSLAND".    WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE INGROUP PROTOTYPICAL OR NON-PROTOTYPICAL AND THAT THEY WILL EASILY FIT INTO UQ OR THAT THEY WON'T. MEASURED INGROUP FAVOURITISM. MORE INGROUP FAVOURITISM WHEN THEY ARE NON-PROTOTYPICAL NOW (ON THE OUTSIDE NOW) BUT WILL BE PROTOTYPICAL IN THE FUTURE (WILL COME INTO TH GROUP IN THE FUTURE) = MORE INGROUP FAVOURITISM.  NON-PROTOTYPICAL NOW AND NOT PROTOTYPICAL IN THE FUTURE = NEGATIVE INGROUP FAVOURITISM.   THEREFORE: INGROUP FAVOURITISM IS THE BIGGEST AMONGST PERIPHERALS WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO BECOME CENTRAL.
  123. EFFORTS TO MAKE INGROUP CREDETIALS EXPERIMENT: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS PT.2:
    UQ STUDENTS WERE PUT INTO LABORATORY GROUPS.    WERE TOLD THEY WERE PROTOTYPICAL OR NOT-PROTOTYPICAL. PARTICIPANTS WERE "CHOSEN" TO NEGOTIATE WITH AN OUTGROUP OVER THE PROCEDURES THAT WOULD EVALUATE INGROUP AND OUTGROUP PRODUCTS IN A COMPETITIVE SITUATION. THEIR CHOICE IT EITHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.  FOUND THAT INGROUP NON-PROTOTYPICAL HAD MORE COMPETITIVE MESSAGES WHEN THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE PUBLIC. HAVE MORE SELF-RATED COMPETITIVENESS = THEY KNOW THAT THEY WERE MORE COMPETITIVENESS. THEREFORE: NON-PROTOTYPICAL MEMBERS AKA. PERIPHERAL MEMBERS MIGHT USE COMPETITION TO GAIN A MORE CENTRAL PLACE OR SHOW LOYALTY TO THE INGROUP.
  124. SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION AND PROTOTYPICALITY EXPERIMENT:
    MEASURED "MALE" IDENTIFICATION. PARTICIPANTS WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE EITHER PROTOTYPICAL OR NON-PROTOTYPICAL OF MEN. THEN RATED IF THEY LIKED A PROTOTYPICAL AND NON-PROTOTYPICAL MAN. THESE WERE MANIPULATED WITH MASCULINE AND FEMININE CHARACTERISTICS. IT FOUND HIGH IDENTIFIERS LIKED THE PROTOTYPICAL MAN THE MOST. NON-PROTOTYPICAL MEN LIKED THE LIKED THE PROTOTYPICAL MAN MORE AND LESS WHEN THE MAN WAS NOT-PROTOTYPICAL. **DOUBLE-CHECK THE RESULTS.
  125. HOW DO HIGHLY PROTOTYPICAL INGROUP MEMBERS BEHAVE?:
    THEY SEE THEMSELVES AS MORE CENTRAL AND MIGHT BE MORE PROTECTIVE OF THE GROUP UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (I.E. THREATENED BECAUSE THEN THEIR OWN SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION WILL BE THREATENED). THEREFORE: MORE LIKELY TO SHOW INGROUP FAVOURITISM WHEN THEY ARE THREATENED.
  126. HIGHLY PROTOTYPICAL INGROUP MEMBER EXPERIMENT: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS:
    INGROUP AN OUTGROUP COMPARED ON THEIR BELEIF IN THE SUPERNATURAL. WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE PROTOTYPICAL AND NON-PROTYPICAL. WERE SHOWN INGROUP AND OUTGROUP DISTRIBUTIONS (I.E. WHERE DISTINCTIVENESS IS THREATENED). OUTGROUP WAS EITHER VERY FAR, MODERATE OR VERY CLOSE TO THE INGROUP (I.E.MOST THREAT). PARTICIPANTS THEN HAD TO ALLOCATE APARTMENTS TO INGROUP AND OUTGROUP MEMBERS. FOUND: PROTOTYPICAL INGROUP MEMBERS GAVE MORE HOUSES TO THE INGROUP WHEN THERE WAS LOTS OF THREAT = MOST INGROUP FAVOURITISM.
  127. CATEGORY DISTINCTIVENESS: UNIVERSITY STUDENTS:
    TOLD THAT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE E.G. LIBERAL MINDED AND AUTHORITARIAN. ALL TOLD THAT THEY WERE LIBERAL MINDED. HAD HIGH DISTINCTIVENESS CONDITION E.G. WERE TOLD ABOUT DIFFERENCES, GOOD CHARACTERISTICS ETC. MEDIUM E.G. WERE TOLD ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES AND LOW E.G. NOTHING. WATCHED A VIDEO WERE ONE PERSON EXPRESSED PRO-AUTHORITARIAN VIEWS AND ONE EXPRESSED MODERATE PRO-AUTHORITARIAN VIEWS. FOUND THAT THE EXTREMEIST WAS MORE REPRESENTATIVE WITH HIGHLY-DISTINCTIVE CONDITIONS AND THE MODERATE EXTREMEIST WAS THE LEAST REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HIGHLY-DISTINCTIVE CONDITION. THEREFORE: EMPHASIZING GROUP DIFFERENCES WILL INCREASE HOW PROTOTYPICAL EXTREMISTS ARE SEEN TO BE.
  128. READING PT.18:
    READING PT.18:
  129. RUSSIAN BOXER VS. AMERICAN BOXER:
    ONE WAS BEATEN UP. HI INGROUP MEMBERS WHO FELT THREAT AND HAD REDUCED COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM WERE MORE DEORGATORY TOWARDS THE OUTGROUP THAN OTHER MEMBERS.
  130. EXPERIMENT:
    • BOGUS TEST. EITHER PERIPHERAL OR CENTRAL. DID A PERSUASIVE-STRATEGY TASK THAT WAS EITHER COOPERATIVE OR COMPETITIVE. WERE TOLD TO PERSUADE EITHER AN INGROUP OR OUTGROUP MEMBER.
    • FOUND THAT PERIPHERAL MEMBERS WERE MORE AGRESSIVE TOWARDS OUTGROUP MEMBERS IN PUBLIC CONDITIONS COMPARED TO PRIVATE CONDITONS. MEANS THEY DID NOT PRIVATELY ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE VIEW TOWARDS THE OUTGROUP. DOES THIS TO AVOID BEING REJECTED .
  131. 19
    19
  132. RECATEGORIZATION:
    INTERGROUP CATEGORIZATION E.G. 12 AND 34. INDIVIDUATION AND DE-CATEGORIZATION E.G. 1 2 3 AND 4. RECATEGORIZATION AT THE SUPERORDINATE GROUP E.G. 1234.
  133. INGROUP-INTERCHANGEABILITY: A RANDOM LEADER EFFECT:
    DOES A SURVIVAL TASK. EITHER HAVE A CHOSEN LEADER, A RANDOM LEADER OR NO LEADER. BETTER DECISIONS WERE MADE WITH RANDOM LEADERS. THIS IS BECAUSE SEEKING TO FIND THE BEST LEADER CAN BREAK DOWN SOCIAL IDENTITY.
  134. LEADER STEREO-TYPICALITY:
    PEOPLE'S EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT LEADERS SHOULD BE LIKE E.G. PLAN, COORDINATE GROUP ACTIVITIES AND TAKES CARE OF THE GROUP'S GOALS.
  135. INGROUP PROTOTYPICALITY AND LEADER STEREOTYPES EXPERIMENT:
    INTERGROUP AND INTERPERSONAL DEBATE ON "INCREASES POLICE POWER". FOUND THAT A LEADER WAS MORE EFFECTIVE WHEN THEY WERE STEREOTYPICAL IN AN INTERPERSONAL SITUATION. MORE EFFECTIVE WHEN THEY WERE INGROUP PROTOTYPICAL IN AN INTERGROUP SITUATION. <0.5
  136. Leader Stereotypicality as an Outcome of InGroup
    Prototypicality: Charisma:
    PROTOTYPICAL LEADERS ARE PERCIEVED TO BE MORE CHARASMATIC THAN NON-PROTOTYPICAL LEADERS. COMMUNICATION DOESN'T MATTER.
  137. Leader Stereotypicality as an Outcome of InGroup
    Prototypicality: Trustworthiness:
    THE MORE INGROUP PROTOTYPICAL A LEADER IS THEN THE MORE THEY WILL BE TRUSTED. WERE MORE TRUSTED THAN INGROUP NON-PROTOTYPICAL LEADERS.
  138. READINGS PT.19:
    READINGS PT.19:
  139. LEADERS?:
    • HAVE TO WOK TO UNDERSTAND THE VALUES AND OPINIONS OF THEIR FOLLOWERS.
    • TOP DOWN PROCESS. HAVE TO POSITION THEMSELVES AMONG THE GROUP RATHER THAN ABOVE IT.
    • GOOD TRAITS DEPEND ON THE KIND OF GROUP BEING LED. E.G. BUSH RESOLVED 9/11 AND FORGED A NEW NATIONAL IDENTITY. PALESTINIAN LEADER STARTED WEARING A HEADSCARF TO IDENTIFY WITH THE POOR.
  140. PRISONERS VS. GUARDS?:
    TWO RANDOM GROUP. EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP HAPPENED IN THE PRISONER GROUP NOT THE GUARDS. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY HAD A STRONG SENSE OF SHARED SOCIAL IDENTITY. BASED ON THEIR DESIRE TO RESIST THE GUARDS AUTHORITY.
  141. SPLITTING A DIALYSIS MACHINE BETWEEN NZ?:
    LIKE IT BETTER WHEN IT WAS SPLIT EVENLY BETWEEN TWO NZ. BUT LIKED IT MORE WHEN NZ HAD MORE USE THAN A FOREIGNER.
  142. 20
    20
  143. LEADERSHIP:
    THE PROCESS OF EFECTING OTHERS AND ENHANCING THEIR CONTRIBUTTION TO GROUP GOALS. THREE RULES: 1. IF NO-ONE FOLLOWES THEN THERE IS NO LEADRERSHIP. 2. IT'S A PROCESS NOT A POSITION. 3. HAVE TO UNDERSTAND SOCIAL INFLUENCE TO UNDERSTAND LEADERSHIP.
  144. SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
    WHEN PEOPLE SHAPE AND CHANGE THE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS OF OTHERS. IT'S NOT MERE COMPILENCE OR RESOURCE-BASED POWER. IT CAUSES TRUE CONVERSION AND INTERNALIZATION. MOST LIKELY TO COME FOM INGROUP MEMBERS AND PROTOTYPICAL INGROUP MEMBERS.
  145. THE SELF-CATEGORIZATION VIEW OF LEADERSHIP:
    • NO TRAIT-BASED ANALYSIS.
    • LOOKS AT INTRAGROUP AND INTERGROUP PROCESSES WHICH HIGHLIGHTS SOCIAL-CONTEXTUAL FACTORS THAT EFFECT: 1. the degree that members define themselves as a group instead of a "collection of individuals". 2. the leader's prototypicality and 3. motivation.
  146. LINE LENGTHS EXPERIMENT:
    STANDARD LINE AND COMPARISON LINE. MAJORY FOLLOWED THE MAJORITY BUT ONLY 5% ALWAYS CONFORMED. A SINGLE DEVIENT COULD DECREASE CONFORMITY.
  147. NORMS AND THE AUTOKENETIC EFFECT:
    STATIONARY LIGHT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MOVING IN A DARK ROOM. MAKE PERSONAL NORMS AND THEN GROUP NORMS. CHANGES A LOT.
  148. SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND HUMOUR JUDGEMENT:
    INGROUP AND OUTGROUP LAUGHING AT A SITCOM. NO LAUGHING WAS SAME AMOUNT OF HUMOUR.  MORE HUMEROUS WHEN THER INGROUP WAS LAUGHING. LAUGHED AND SMILED MORE WHEN THE INGROUP DID.
  149. SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND MONETARY DONATIONS:
    TEAMED FANS DONATED MORE TO THEIR INGROUP COLLECTER THAN OTHERS. BUT MORE TO A OUTGROUP COLLECTER THAN A NEUTRAL COLLECTER == MAYBE BECAUSE THEY WERE CELEBRATING AND FELT BAD.
  150. SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND FOOD CONSUMPTION:
    MORE POPCORN EATEN WHEN THE INGROUP ANU STUDENT SAID THAT THEY ATE LOTS OF POPCORN. LESS WHEN THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T EAT ANY. OUTGROUP MEMBER TELLING THEM MADE NO DIFFERENCE.
  151. SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND SUBJECTIVE STRESS:
    RATED THE ICE TASK AS BEING MORE STRESSFUL WHEN AN INGROUP MEMBER TOLD THEM IT WAS STRESSFUL.
  152. SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL TO PHYSICAL PAIN:
    RATED SECOND TIME AS LESS PAINFUL WHEN INGROUP MEMBER SAID IT WAS LESS PAINFUL. SCIENCE STUDENT.
  153. ATTITUDE CHANGE TO STRONG AND WEAK ARGUEMENTS EXPERIMENT:
    MORE PERSUADED BY SOMEONE FROM THE INGROUP WITH A STRONG ARGUEMENT WHO IS TALKING ABOUT A RELEVENT ATTITUDE E.G. OFFSHORE DRILLING. NEGATIVELY EFFECTED BY SAME CONDITION BUT A BAD ARGUEMENT. BAD AND STRONG ARGUEMENT WERE MORE PERSUASIVE WHEN AN INGROUP MEMBER WAS MAKING IT ABOUT AN IRRELEVENT TOPIC E.G. ACID RAIN. OUTGROUP MEMBER WAS ALWAYS LESS.
  154. SOCIAL INFLUENCE AND INGROUP PROTOTYPICALITY:
    PROTOTYPICAL IG MEMBER WHO WAS MAKING A STRONG ARGUEMENT WAS ALWAYS FAVOURED. NOT A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING A BAD ARGUEMENT. ARGUEMENT WAS ABOUT ENTRANCE EXAMS.
  155. READING PT. 20:**ABOUT PREVIOUS STUDIES:**
    READING PT. 20: 
  156. NOTES:
    • LEADERS MUST BE ONE OF "US".
    • WHEN INDIVIDUALS DON'T SEE THEMSELVES AS A MEMBER OF THE LEADER'S GROUP AND VICE VERSA THEN THEY WILL BEHAVE AS 1. INDIVIDUALS AND 2. MEMBERS OF A DIFFERENT GROUP.
    • LEADERSHIP-BY-BUYING WOULDN'T WORK.
    • PEOPLE HAVE COGNITIVE SELF-CATEGORIES THAT MAKE THEM MORE SIMILAR OR LESS SIMILAR TO OTHER PEOPLE.
    • CHOOSE INGROUP NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE OUTGROUP ARGUEMENT WAS.
    • BUT ONLY IF THE INGROUP ARGUEMENT IS STRONG. WEAK ARGUEMENTS DROVE THEM AWAY.
    • WAS CONSIDERED FAIR WHEN EVENLY DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN INGROUP AND FAIR WHEN BIASED TOWARDS INGROUP OVER OUTGROUP.
  157. SOCIAL INFLUENCE IN A BYSTANDER-INTERVENTION EXPERIMENT:
    UNEFFECTED BY OUTGROUP BYSTANDERS BUT HELPED LESS WHEN INGROUP MEMBERS DIDN'T INTERVENE AND HELPED MORE WHEN INGROUP MEMBERS DID HELP.
  158. INGROUP-BASED PROCESSES AND MINORITY INFLUENCE:
    • ATTITUDES TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL FUNDING WAS CHANGED MORE BY A MINORITY OPINION EXPRESSED BY AN INGROUP MEMBER THAN AN OUTGROUP MEMBER.
    • OUTLINE ATTITUDES MORE WITH INGROUP. HAPPENED EVEN WHEN THE VIEW WAS ORIGINALLY A MINORITY VIEW.
  159. 21
    21
  160. FAIRNESS MATTERS ENCOUNTERS WITH POLICE EXPERIMENT:
    TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD HAD CONTACT WITH THE POLICE E.G. CALLS OR BEING STOPPED.   WERE HAPPIER WHEN THERE WAS PERCIEVED FAIRNESS, GOOD PERFORMANCE AND THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED. FAIRNESS WAS IMPORTANT FOR REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME E.G. FINE.
  161. DISTRIBUTIVE FAIRNESS:
    AGREED RULES ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF VALUED RESOURCES. E.G. EQUALITY: Everyone gets the same. Maintains positive interpersonal relationships. EQUITY: Depends on contribution. Encourages members to contribute as much as they can.  NEED: Depends on need. Means the weakest can continue. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: when you have been disadvantaged in the past you will get more. COMMUNISM: everybody does things and the weakest can continue. WINNER-TAKES-ALL: The winner gets everything. Doesn't help the community.
  162. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS:
    AGREED RULES ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DECISION IS MADE. E.G. PROCESS CONTROL: Everyone gets a say. Has voice in how the distrubution is made. Get the opportunity. DECISION-CONTROL: Members getting the distrubution get to decide how. Get to help with the decision-making process
  163. DISTRIUTIVE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS:
    TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOUR IN COURT EXPERIMENT: HAD TO GO TO COURT E.G. DIDN'T JUST PAY A FINE. TESTED OUTCOME LEVEL E.G. RELATIVE TO THEIR EXPECTATION, GENERAL POPULATION AND FAMILY AND FRIENDS THAT HAD BEEN IN COURT.   OUTCOME SATISFACTION, JUDGE AND COURT EVALUATIONS WERE ALL BETTER WHEN THERE WAS OUTCOME FAIRNESS AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS. MORE IMPORTANT THAN ACTUAL OUTCOMES.
  164. DISTRIUTIVE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS:
    TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOUR IN COURT EXPERIMENT PT.2: TESTED PROCESS CONTROL E.G. DID YOU PRESENT EVIDENCE AND WAS IT PRESENTED THE WAY YOU WANTED IT TO BE. AND DECISION-CONTROL. JUSTICE, JUDGE AND COURT EVALUTATIONS WERE BIGGER WHEN THERE WAS GOOD PROCESS CONTROL. STROGER THAN DECISION-CONTROL. THEREFORE: HAVING A "VOICE" IN THEIR CASE WAS IMPORTANT.
  165. BROAD EXPERIENCES WITH THE LEGAL AUTHRORITIES EXPERIMENT:
    RANDOM TELEPHONE SAMPLE. TESTED OUTCOME FAVOURABILITY, PROCESS CONTROL AND TRUST AND RESPECT ETC. THERE WAS MORE PERCIEVED PROCEDURAL JUSTICE WHEN THERE WAS MORE TRUST AND RESPECT. OTUCOME DIDN'T REALLY MATTER. THERE WAS MORE DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE WHEN THE OUTCOME WAS GOOD BUT TRUST WAS STILL IMPORTANT. FEELINGS TOWARDS THE COURT WAS BETWEEN WHEN THERE WAS MORE TRUST AS RESPECT. NEUTRALITY WAS ALSO IMPORTANT. THESE THREE FACTORS E.G. TRUST, RESPECT AND NEURTRALITY ARE ALL EFFECT HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS PERCIEVED.
  166. 22
    22
  167. THE TWO COMPONENTS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS:
    1. OUTCOME E.G. THE VOICE WAS FAIR BECAUSE IT GAVE US A CHANCE TO EFFECT THE OVERALL DECISION AND 2. SYMBOLIC E.G. VOICE IS FAIR BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT WE ARE A VALUED GROUP MEMBER. MEANS THEY FEEL MORE RESPECT, POSITIVE MOOD, SELF-ESTEEM AND GROUP COMMITMENT.^^
  168. EXTRA-ROLE EXPERIMENT:
    TESTED VOICE-DENIAL, NON-INSTRAMENTAL VOICE AND INTRAMENTAL VOICE (INSTRAMENTAL VOICE = EFFECTS THE OUTCOME).  WERE GIVEN 10 FLYERS TO DISTRIBUTE FOR THE EXPERIMENTERS E.G. INGROUP AUTHOIRTY. TOOK MORE WHEN BOTH INTRAMENTAL VOICE AND NON-INTRAMENTAL VOICE WAS BIG. DID MORE WORK AND HAD GREATER RESPECT.   THIS MEANS THAT PEOPLE WANT VOICE AND EVEN NON-INTRAMENTAL VOICE IS GOOD. THEY WANT A GOOD STANDING WITHIN THE INGROUP.
  169. EXTRA-ROLE EXPERIMENT IN A INTRAGROUP AND INTERGROUP CONTEXT:
    IMAGINED THAT THE LEADER OF YOUR COMMITTEE I.E. HINDU OR MUSLUM NEEDS YOU TO HELP HIM MAKE A DECISION ON THE MATTER, HE'S ALREADY DECIEDED BUT WANTED OPINIONS OR TO SOME MEMBERS WERE CHOSEN BUT NOT YOU. INGROUP AUTHORITY = MORE RESPECT AND FAIRNESS WHEN THEY HAD VOICE AND NON-INTRAMENTAL VOICE. WERE LESS LIKELY TO PROTEST. OUTGROUP AUTHORITY = LESS RESPECT AN FAIRNESS WHEN NO VOICE AND NON-INSTRAMENTAL VOICE. THESE TWO CONDITIONS WERE MORE LIKELY TO PROTEST.
  170. ETHNOCENTRIC PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS:
    INTERGROUP CONFLICT BETWEEN INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS AND WHITE AUSTRALIANS OVER NATIVE TITLE. BOTH GROUPS PREFERED THE INDEGENOUS SPEAKER BUT ONLY UNDER THEIR OWN AUTHORITY E.G. WHITES WANTED WHITES TO HAVE DECISION-CONTROL.    INDIGENOUS WANTED PROCESS E.G. VOICE CONTROL AND DECISION-CONTROL. INDIGENOUS WERE MORE LIKELY TO PROTEST WHEN THERE WAS A WHITE SPEAKER AND A WHITE AUTHORITY. MEANS THAT GROUP MEMBERSHIP, AUTHORITY GROUP AND THE NATURE OF VOICE ARE ALL IMPORTANT.
  171. 23
    23
  172. GROUP-BASED EMOTIONS:
    MOODS THAT ARE EFFECTED BY THEIR PSYCHOLOGICAL MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP. OFTEN CONTINGENT WITH THE VALUE OF THE GROUP MEMBERSHIP, IT'S SUCCESS OR FAILURE AND IT'S POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DEEDS. GROUP MEMBERS DO EXPERIENCE THESE EMOTIONS E.G. HAPPY AND ANXIETY.
  173. SPORT-FANS EMOTIONS EXPERIMENT:
    REPORTED EMOTIONS E.G. WORRY AND AROUSAL BEFORE AND AFTER THE GAME AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION WAS MEASURED.  HAD MORE COGNITIVE ANXIETY BEFORE AND AFTER THE GAME IF THEY IDENTIFIED HIGHLY WITH THE TEAM. PHYSICOLOGICAL ANXIETY WAS ALSO HIGHER BUT MORE AT HALF-TIME.
  174. NATIONAL GROUP MEMBER'S EMOTION EXPERIMENT:
    WATCHED ROCKY IV SCENE WHERE SOMEONE GETS BEATEN UP. HAD HIGHER BLOOD PRESSURE POST-SCENE WHEN THEY WERE HIGHLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE GROUP. OUTCOME DIDN'T EFFECT THEIR BP.
  175. CAN GROUP MEMBERS FEEL "COLLECTIVE GUILT"?:
    • MIMINAL GROUPS TOLD THAT THE PREVIOUS GROUP WAS EITHER FAIR WHEN JUDGING AN OUTGROUPS PRODUCTS OR INFAIR. TESTED THEIR COLLECTIVE GUILT E.G. I FEEL BAD ABOUT THE OTHER GROUPS ACTIONS ETC. COLLECTIVE GUILT WAS EFFECTED BY THEIR SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION. PEOPLE IN THE HIGH BIAS CONDITION ALSO FELT MORE GUILT.
    • ===
  176. COLLECTIVE GUILT AND RELATIVE INGROUP ADVANTAGE:
    WHITE AUSTRALIANS AND INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS EXPERIMENT. MEASURED COLLECTIVE GUILT E.G. I FEEL BAD ABOUT HOW WE HAVE TREATED ABORIGINALS. MORE GUILT WHEN THE INGROUP E.G. WHITE WAS ADVANTAGED.
  177. INGROUP PRIVALEGE AND OUTGROUP DISADVANTAGE:
    MANIPULATED THE PERCEPTIONS OF WHITE AND BLACK DISADVANTAGE E.G. WHITE PEOPLE HAVE MORE PRIVALAGES AND BLACK PEOPLE ARE MORE DISADVANTAGED. STUDENTS IN THE INGROUP PRIVALEGE FRAMW HAD MORE COLLECTIVE GUILT THAN THOSE IN THE OUTGROUP DISADVANTAGE GROUP. MORE COLLECTIVE GUILT = LESS RACIAL ATTITUDES AND THEY FAVOURED THE INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS MORE.
  178. SUPPORT OF COMPENSATION EXPERIMENT:
    MORE COLLECTIVE GUILT = MORE SUPPORT FOR COMPENSATORY ACTION. BUT NO DIRECT EFFECT ON THEIR OWN WILLINGNESS TO ACT.
  179. 24
    24
  180. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:
    ARE CAUSED BY INTERGROUP RELATIONSHIPS.   CAN BE REDUCED BY 1. cooperation for a superordinate goal and 2. self-categorizing at the superordinate level and still recognizing subgroup identities. HOWEVER IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO CHANGE INTERGROUP RELATIONS IN A DIFFERENT WAY E.G. BECAUSE INTERGROUP COOPERATION DOESN'T WORK ALL THE TIME.
  181. THE THREE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF SOCIAL PROTEST:
    1. THE CONSTRUCTION AND RE-CONSTRUCTION OF COLLECTIVE BELIEFS. 2. THE TRANSFORMATION OF DISCONTENT INTO COLLECTIVE ACTION AND 3. MAINTAINING THE COMMITTMENT TO SOCIAL CHANGE AND MOVEMENT.
  182. COLLECTIVE ACTION-FRAMES:
    SETS OF ACTION-ORIENTATED BELIEFS THAT LEGITMATE SOCIAL PROTEST.  THEY UNDERPIN 1. A SENSE OF INJUSTICE, IDENTITY AND AGENCY.
  183. PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS E.G. INJUSTICE EXPERIMENT:
    3 TESTS ARE SCORE CORRECTLY AND ONE ISN'T E.G. 8/10 ASSESSED RIGHT OR JUST 1/10 ASSESSED RIGHT. THE VERY WRONG PROCEDURE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE MORE UNFAIR THAN THE SOMEWHAT WRONG PROCEDURE. INTENTION TO PROTEST WAS ^.
  184. PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS E.G. INJUSTICE EXPERIMENT WITH THREE SAMPLES:
    1. ENGLISH UNI STUDENT E.G. THE MORE TUITION FEES WERE SEEN AS BEING UNFAIR THE MORE THE PARTICIPANTS SUPPORTED E.G. NORMATIVE ACTION E.G. signs AND NON-VIOLENT NON-NORMATIVE ACTION E.G. block the highway etc. NEVER VIOLENT NON-NORMATIVE ACTIONS. 2. MUSLIM STUDENTS. WHEN THEY WERE SEEN AS BEING DISADVANTAGED COMPARED TO HINDU GROUPS THEY SUPPORTED E.G. POLICY CHANGE AND VIOLENT ACTION EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T CONDONE THE VIOLENCE ITSELF. 3. MUSLIM ENGLISH FACEBOOK USERS:  WHEN ENGLISH POLICIES WERE SEEN AS UNFAIR IN THE MIDDLE EAST THEN THE PARTICIPANTS SUPPORTED NORMATIVE COLLECTIVE ACTION E.G. peaceful protest and rallies. VIOLENCE AGAINST MILTARY TARGETS E.G. to get them out of muslim countries. BUT NEVER VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CIVILIANS.
  185. INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY AND SUBGROUP ENHANCEMENT EXPERIMENT:
    • "VISIBLE" MINORITY IMMIGRANTS RESPONDED TO ASSIMILATION AND SUBGROUP ENHANCEMENT QUESTIONS. ASSIMILATION WAS PREDICTED BY SELF-ESTEEM AND THE LEGICIMACY OF THE CANADIAN SYSTEM.
    • ENHANCEMENT WAS PREDICTED BY GROUP DISCRIMINATION, NEIGHBOURHOOD DIVERSITY, YEARS LIVING IN CANADA AND CONVERATISM.
Author
e0dunne
ID
340309
Card Set
PSYC3002
Description
PSYC3002
Updated